The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-04-28
THE COURTS.


Justices ]. W. Stayton and R. r. Gaines;
Charles S. Morse, clerk; NJ. M. Johnson,
bailf.
G. B. Gerald VS.. D. G. Freeman, ct al.
from McLennan county; opinion by Willie
CD.
The main question for decision in this
case was determined by this court in the
ca'e of Freeman VS.. Gerald Texas Law
Reporter, page 744, The parties are the
same in both cases.
The question is, whether the east boun-
Diary line of the Maxwell grant is called
for by courses and distances, OR is ii
merely the west boundary line of the
Chambers survey? Appellants claimed
the latter as the boundary line, while APP
peliee claim the line run by courses and
distances. While this court recognizes
that courses and distances ordinarily yield
to natural or artificial objects, yet they
do not yield to an unmarked prairie line,
such as the west line of the Chambers
survey. In fact, the west line OF
the Chambers grant would give
the locator more land than
he was entitled to which is certainly not
the intention of the act of October 10,
1886, and as that act has never been
changed it has to be construed by the
courts. The surveyor who ran the lines
of the Maxwell grant said that, at that
time, the west line of the Chambres' grant
was not marked, and there was 10 way to
recognize it, being in the prairie, and that
| be was guided by the maps of the general
aud Office and tried to keep off the
Chambers survey. The law presumes
that an officer does his duty, and that the
EnI+ 30 a oINro on1
| by the survey. There is no proof to the
contrary, and the surveyors evidence cor
roborates the report of the survey, that
the survey was actually made. In our
opinion, there is sufficient evidence that
the Maxwell survey was made, and that
its east line fell short of the Chambers
tract 500 varas. The other points made
by appellee need not be considered, and
the judgment is affirmed.
McIlhenny company ct al VS.. Leon d
H. Blum ct al, from Bell county. Opinion
by Gaines, A. j.
The Mountain Home Cooperative as
ISOLATION made an assignment to Appel
lee Wordsworth, and after the property
was administered Oh, and dividend was
about to be paid, appellants brought suit
to cancel the Blums' claim. This claim
was promissory note which read as fol-
| lows:
On January l, 1885, we promise to pay
to the order of Leon & II. Blum 81, 490.03,
at their Office, in Galveston, Texas,
with exchange and interest at the rate of
eight per cent per annum from date.
August IA, 1882. (Signed) j. f. Nc
Aunich, A. j. Dallas, E. B. Edwards,
Wright g. Harrell, j. G. Bell, A. G. Stone.
| ol,n tba 70
given for a debt of the corporation by
Jones, who was agent, and as between the
makers, the corporation was the princi-
pal and the others sureties.
1t is contended that the Blums released
McAunich, Dallas and Wright d Harrell,
and thereby released its claim against the
corporation.
1t is true that the release of the prlnci
pal releases the surety, but the release of
the latter surely does not release the prin-
cipal, as by the surety's release the prin-
cipal can be in no worse position. The
above named parties were released for
consideration and had right to purchase
their dischage. Their release says in
terms, I'VE agree to release" them from
any and all liability to US for the differ
ence between the amount of dividends we
| r6C6lN6 Oh Sdlu uOIe anu WIG oLlouhU
which may be due. There is no doubt
that the release of the sureties does not
release the principal, and the court below
did not err in so holding.
1t is contended that the amounts paid
by McAnnuch ct al. should be credited on
the note, but what has been said dispOses
of this question. The released ones did
not undertake to pay part of the debt,
| 4 L.. L. a.
Tn re is no error in the judgment as far
as it awarded to the Blums the entire
dividend in their favor, and it is affirmed.
j. j. A. j. Dull VS.. f. M. Drake ct al,
from McMullen county. Opinion by
Willie, G. j.
This was trespass to try title brought
by appellants.
There is no statement of facts, and the
only assignment of error relates to the
ruling out by tho court below of an ad-
ministrator's deed to the appellants. 1t
has been repeatedly held that we will not
revise the action of the district judge in
admitting or rejecting evidence when
there is no statement of facts in the
record. The appellants depend upon
bill of exceptions to bring to our knowl-
edge the facts proved upon the trial, and
we know of no authority to prevent this;
we will add that, had the ruling of the
court been properly before us we Wouio
have sanctioned il.
1t is rather remarkable case. A party
is appointed temporary administrator;
gets an order from the court and sells real
estate under the most hurried state of
proceedings Imaginable. He returns no
inventory and gives no notice to parties
interested, and gives no bond.
The judgment is affirmed.
W. NJ. Perry VS.. r. NJ. Scott, from Col
lin county. Opinion by Willie, G. J.
This is motion to affirm on certificate.
The record shows affidavit of poverty in
lieu of an appeal bond. The oath Is in
compliance with the law in every respect
except as to description of the judy
ment. 1t does not give the number of
the case, the date or nature of the judg-
ment nor in whose favor it is rendered.
These are natural errors as has been held
before by this court, and the certificate
must be dismissed.
A. W. Jarvis VS.. Geo. W. Jalonick ct al,
from Wichita county. Opinion by Will
lie, G. j.
This was a case similar to the case 81
Perry VS.. Scott supra and is dismissed.